Search form

Basic Information

The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by a group of law students at the University of Chicago. Today, the Federalist Society has 70 chapters with between...

The Federalist Society

Body:

The Federalist Society was founded in 1982 by a group of law students at the University of Chicago. Today, the Federalist Society has 70 chapters with between 60,000 to 70,000 members. The chapters host over 300 annual events, dominated largely by debates and speakers at law schools. In addition, they host dinners, speaking events, produce podcasts, publish articles and offer $222,000 annually in Olin/Searle Fellowships for law students.

While the Federalist Society does not take any official legal or public policy positions, they allow their members to use their clout to make their own opinions known.

The Federalist Society is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization making all donations tax-deductible. Their annual budget is usually between 11 to 19 million a year with a recent upward trend. In 2014 for example, they received $13 million. In 2015, the total rose to $18 million.

The Federalist Society lobbies the government to appoint judges that hold conservative values. The Federalist Society has been very successful in getting their preferred judges appointed during both Bush presidencies.

Between 2004 and 2013, Donors Trust distributed $80 million to conservative causes, many of which deny the science and impacts of human-caused climate change or the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund share the same address in Alexandria, Virginia, and share several directors.

Institute for Judicial Administration at the New York University School of Law

Institutions

American Civil Rights Union

Cato Institute

The Heritage Foundation

The Hoover Institution

Becket Fund for Religious Liberty

American Bankers Association

Manhattan Institute

R Street Institute

Pacific Legal Foundation

Washington Legal Foundation

National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

International and National Security Law Practice Group

Center for Equal Opportunity

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

National Review Institute

America Matters

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center

Institute for Justice

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

Alliance Defending Freedom

Law firms

Bancroft PLLC

Wiley Rein LLP

Brown Wegner LLP

Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Mayer Brown LLP

Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP

Climate Change – What Consensus?

While the Federalist Society’s website does not outright deny climate change, it allows members to publish articles that make statements like “there isn’t a consensus”. One method members use to promote a lack of consensus is to criticize specific publications by climate change scientists to call into question the validity of their entire body of work and the work of all their colleagues. Specifically, it was argued that the reports published by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), a summation of thousands of scientists’ models, data and analysis, should be taken with heavy skepticism because a single lab in England didn’t have, in their opinion, fully accurate findings.

Climate Change – If the future can’t be predicted with 100% accuracy members of the Federalist Society want people to ignore the prediction!

In addition, members of the Federalist Society make claims that because the IPCC report utilizes scaled probability that lists with the best scientific estimations of the likelihood of what degree of impact will occur, the report should not be considered because there is not a 100% guarantee the impact will be exactly what the IPCC estimates it will be.

Climate Change –Introducing students across the country to bad science!

The impacts of such events are not insignificant. A student that attended told Rice’s official newspaper, Ricethresher: "the debate brought a valuable dissenting opinion to what is commonly considered settled science”.

Climate Change – Government Consensus is needed for effective action

Whether politicians accept that climate change is caused by human activities largely impacts the government’s willingness and ability to put into place policies to mitigate warming.

The Federalist Society has multiple publications that imply that when considering policy actions to mitigate climate change, whether humans are causing it should be left out. One such example is, “The next administration will have the opportunity to elevate the discussion in the interest of developing a realistic and affordable set of policies to cope with whatever climate change may occur, without regard for whether it is human caused”. The implication that climate change is not human caused makes actions taken seem less impactful or important if they are solving the implied cause of the problem.

Climate Change – The Federalist Society claims that it’s better to adapt than to mitigate

“The better approachis to prepare for the possible impacts of climate change with strategies for adaptation if and when changes occur, and with an understandingthat the predictions are based on models that necessarily simplify extremely complex natural processes. Because most climate change mitigation strategies that have been proposed would dramatically affect the cost of energy, and because energy costs are a significant factor for virtually all businesses, climate change policies must account for economic effects including innovation, investment, employment, compensation, and the quality of goods and services. Recent innovations in the technology of petroleum extraction (‘fracking’ and directional drilling) demonstrate that private innovation can have significant environmental benefits (reduced carbon emissions from the substitution of natural gas for coal, for example) as well economic benefits (lower energy costs and new jobs, for example) [added bolding, underlining and coloring]”.

This statement is a perfect example of many of the arguments authors of Federalists Society articles utilize to sew doubt about climate change or deflect the conversation.

In that statement, the author implies two warrants of doubt on the climate change science (red) and implied absolute opinion on a topic without evidence (green), asserts the comparative cost of mitigation vs adaptation is financially more in favor of adaptation as if it is an established fact instead of what it really is, the minority view (orange). It attacks the science without giving proof that the ‘flaws’ they point out actually yield incorrect results (underlined). It places ultimatums on hypothetical situations to narrow the reader’s perspective when the conditions are not 100% or nothing as implied (purple and bold). Misrepresents the difference between technological improvements and “environmental benefits” by comparing fracking to the more polluting Coal with no regard for any another energy source (blue)

Regulations – Are the Environmental Regulations we disagree with nefariously planned?

The Federalist Society has publications that use language that makes it appear that they support regulations but also make statements that the regulations they oppose are put into place for nefarious purposes and seem to always be exaggerations of what is needed to protect the environment.

An example of this behavior is the following statement: “while most environmental regulations have important and legitimate purposes, the monitoring and compliance costs often exceed the public benefits and, like all regulations, those relating to environmental protection and natural resources conservation can be manipulated for the benefit of special interests rather than the public welfare.”

Regulations – If the government failed in the past, is it better to give up regulating all together?

The Federalist Society’s members use the argument that because decisions by the federal government have in the past led to environmental problems they should leave it up to companies to handledifficult questions sucjh as water rights.

An example of that argument was the following, “while there is a necessary role for federal involvement in the allocation of interstate waters, it is important to recognize that historic government policies have contributed to some of the nation’s most serious environmental problems, and that private water markets can make an important contribution to the efficient use of water resources”.

Considering that environmental regulations have commonly been enacted because companies have operated in irresponsible and harmful ways, the argument that federal government should step back and allow private industry to be in charge doesn’t make sense. A UN report confirmed continuing industry failing when they reported that the top 3,000 firms have caused an estimated 2.2 trillion dollars in damages to the environment as of 2008, a number that has only risen since then.

About Polluter Watch

PolluterWatch is a project of Greenpeace that holds polluters accountable for the work they’re doing to block the transition from the dirty fossil fuels of the past to the clean energy sources of the future.

The science is clear: We must take immediate action to avert the worst effects of global warming. But polluters, their lobbyists, and the politicians who work with them are holding the climate debate hostage and poisoning the debate about policies that would lower our greenhouse gas emissions and kickstart a clean energy revolution. Help us hold the polluters accountable. Get in touch today and find out how you can help. Learn More